The Boeing CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 27, 20212020000164 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/954,557 07/30/2013 Eric Y. Chan 13-0870-US-NP 1022 48058 7590 07/27/2021 GATES & COOPER LLP - Boeing HOWARD HUGHES CENTER 6060 CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 830 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 EXAMINER JORDAN, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing-us@gates-cooper.com gates-cooper@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC Y. CHAN, DENNIS G. KOSHINZ, TUONG KIEN TRUONG, HENRY B. PANG, WILLIAM E. LAWRENCE, CLETE MARK BOLDRIN, and ANGELA W. LI Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 17–25, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing Company. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Our decision addresses the positions raised in the Examiner’s Final Office Action (Final Act.), dated July 12, 2018; Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an optical network architecture comprised of optical communications buses that allow electronic devices to communicate. Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) ¶¶ 2–4. Because communications buses comprising optical fibers save weight compared to those comprising metal wires, they are particularly useful in aircraft. Id. at ¶ 3. As shown in Figure 8 below, an optical network 800 comprises a pair of first and second mixing rods 812 and 813 that respectively transmit and receive optical signals for optical-electrical media converters 811-1 through 811-N. Spec. ¶ 47. Likewise, a pair of third and fourth mixing rods 822 and 823 respectively transmit and receive optical signals for optical-electrical media converters 821-1 through 821-N. Spec. ¶ 48. Br.”), dated December 12, 2018; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated August 6, 2019; and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), dated October 7, 2019. Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 3 Figure 8 of the present application depicts a schematic of an optical network that includes two pairs of tapered mixing rods. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 47. Each mixing rod has a small face for connecting to the other mixing rods and a large face for connecting to the optical-electrical media converters. Each pair of mixing rods 812/813 and 822/823 is configured to transmit or receive optical signals to or from the other pair via optical fibers 832 and 833. Optical fibers 831 and 834 each transmit optical signals internal to each pair of mixing rods 812/813 and 822/823, respectively. Spec. ¶ 49. Accordingly, an electrical signal sent by one of the first plurality Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 4 of line replaceable units 810 is converted into an optical signal by one of the optical-electrical media converters 811 to be received by all of the line replaceable units of the first and second plurality of line replaceable units 810 and 820. Spec. ¶ 50. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An optical network architecture comprising: a first pair of tapered mixing rods comprising a first mixing rod and a second mixing rod, each tapered mixing rod of the first pair comprising a small face and a large face; a second pair of tapered mixing rods comprising a third mixing rod and a fourth mixing rod, each tapered mixing rod of the second pair comprising a small face and a large face; a first plurality of plastic optical fibers communicatively coupled from the first pair of tapered mixing rods to a first plurality of line replaceable units; a second plurality of plastic optical fibers communicatively coupled from the second pair of tapered mixing rods to a second plurality of line replaceable units; further optical fiber having a first end affixed to the small face of one of the first pair of tapered mixing rods and a second end affixed to the small face of one of the second pair of tapered mixing rods, and wherein the further optical fiber comprises a hard clad silica optical fiber; a first loop back optical fiber directly coupled between the small face of the first mixing rod and the small face of the second mixing rod; a second loop back optical fiber directly coupled between the small face of the third mixing rod and the small face of the fourth mixing rod; wherein the further optical fiber is configured to communicate a first optical signal from the one of the first pair of tapered mixing rods directly to the one of the second pair of tapered mixing rods; a still further optical fiber having a first end affixed to the small face of the other of the first pair of tapered mixing rods and Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 5 a second end affixed to the small face of the other one of the second pair of tapered mixing rods; and wherein the still further optical fiber is configured to communicate a second optical signal from the other of the first pair of tapered mixing rods directly to the other of the second pair of tapered mixing rods. Appeal Br. 26, Claim App’x. REFERENCE(S) The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Milton US 3,936,141 February 3, 1976 Love US 4,072,399 February 7, 1978 Kobayashi US 4,948,218 August 14, 1990 Yuuki US 6,062,742 May 16, 2000 Mrakovich US 6,116,789 September 12, 2000 Friden US 6,697,874 B1 February 24, 2004 REJECTION(S) The following rejections are on appeal: 1. Claims 1, 2, 21, 22, and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Love in view of Friden and Milton. 2. Claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Love in view of Friden. 3. Claims 3–5 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Love in view of Friden, Milton, and Mrakovich. 4. Claims 6 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Love in view of Friden, Milton, Mrakovich, and Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 6 5. Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Love in view of Friden, Milton, Mrakovich, AAPA, and Yuuki. 6. Claims 17–20, 23, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Love in view of Friden, Milton, and Kobayashi OPINION After reviewing carefully each of Appellant’s arguments for patentability, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports sustaining the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Final Action and Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Prior Art Overview Figure 1 of Love, shown below, is a schematic diagram of a loop data bus having a central processing unit (“CPU”) 10 and a plurality of stations 11 through 15 that are interconnected by optical transmission lines 16 (i.e., by way of an optical loop transmission line). Love 2:30–43; Fig. 1. The stations and the CPU interface with the loop data bus through couplers 17– 22. Id. Optical signals travel in one direction as indicated by arrows 32. Id. Figure 1 of Love depicts a schematic illustration in block diagram form of a loop data bus. Love 2:20–21, 30–31. As shown in Figure 2, below, Love discloses an example coupler 35 comprising a pair of tapered mixer rods 48 and 56 where each tapered mixer Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 7 rod has a large endface on one end and a small endface on an opposite end. Love 3:62–4:11; Fig. 2. The large endface of the first tapered mixer rod 48 is connected to a receiver 41, and the large endface of the second tapered mixer rod 56 is connected to a transmitter 42. Id. Waveguide bundles 53 and 54 are attached to the small endfaces of the tapered mixer rods 48 and 56, respectively. Id. Bundle 53 extracts a portion of an optical signal from the network via optical transmission line 37 shown in Figure 1 into the first tapered mixer rod 48, and bundle 54 introduces an optical signal from the second tapered mixer rod 56 into the network via optical transmission like 38. Id. Figure 2 of Love depicts a cross-sectional view of a preferred embodiment of a coupler, such as one of couplers 17 through 22 depicted in Figure 1. Love 2:23–24, 43–45. Non-tapered mixer rod 46 functions to distribute the optical signals propagating in fiber bundles 52 and 54 in a uniform manner over the individual waveguides of the loop transmission line 38. Id at 4:5–11. Love further teaches that each station in an optical communication network can be “hardwired” to every other station, but “when many stations must be interconnected, the excessive amount of optical signal transmission Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 8 line required causes this method to be undesirable due to the cost of the transmission line and the space consumed thereby.” Love 1:39–44. Milton relates to an improvement to a T-coupler for coupling information from and into an optical multimode fiber bundle transmission line. Milton 1:19–25. The improvement allows additional information to be added or removed from said optical transmission line. Id. at 1:14–18. As shown in the figure below, connectors 31 and 32 are connected by the fiber bundle 33, which conducts optical transmission from one connector to the other depending upon which connector the transmission is directed. Id. at 2:57–52. Appellant’s arguments are primarily directed to the teachings of Love or Love in combination with Milton, and all claims, though separately presented, stand or fall with the arguments presented for claim 1. See generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, we address only these references with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Appellant contends that Love fails to disclose “wherein the further optical fiber is configured to communicate a first optical signal from the one of the first pair of tapered mixing rods directly to the one of the second pair of tapered mixing rods,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 17. Specifically, Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 9 Appellant argues that the claims require “a fiber directly connected between Love’s tapered rod 56 and another tapered mixing rod [i.e., an adjacent tapered mixing rod 51].” Appeal Br. 19. According to Appellant, intervening devices such as the non-tapered mixer rods 45, 46 and the fiber bundles 37 and 38 prevent direct communication between the fiber emanating from the tapered rod 56 to the tapered rod 48 of another station. Id. at 18. We are not persuaded that Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s rejection. First, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s broad interpretation of the phrase “the further optical fiber is configured to communicate a first optical signal from the one of the first pair of tapered mixing rods directly to the one of the second pair of tapered mixing rods.” The Examiner has interpreted the phrase such that the adverb “directly” modifies “the communication” of an optical signal and such communication need not be accomplished by a single optical “fiber,” as asserted by Appellant. The Examiner supports this interpretation by reference to embodiments depicted in Figures 10A to 11B, which are described as including repeaters and attenuators in the optical connection between the two mixing rods, yet the fibers are configured for direct communication. Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 6. We find the Examiner’s broad interpretation reasonable in light of the entire scope of the Specification, which includes no limiting language associated with the phrase recited in the claim, yet includes embodiment with direct optical communication between mixing rods via fibers configured with additional optical transmission components, as well as Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 10 embodiments with direct optical communication via only what appears a single fiber. Moreover, the Examiner expressly relies on the teaching in Love that states that each station alternatively could have been connected to every other station, as a known alternative to the loop arrangement, as evidence of a teaching of a “direct” hard-fiber connection between each station, as no mixing would be necessary, even under the Appellant’s more narrow construction: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute hard-wiring/hard-fibering between at least two stations along the lines of Love, above, in a system according to Love as set forth above in order to provide [an] equivalent signal route and/or signal supply. Final Act. 6–7; see Love 1:39–44 (“Each station can be ‘hard wired’ to every other station . . . .”). To the Examiner’s alternative position, Appellant argues that Love disparages the teaching of a hardwired configuration by stating that an excessive amount of optical transmission line increases the cost and space required. Appeal Br. 19–21. Appellant further argues that the loop structure of Figure 1 of Love is meant to be implemented over the hardwired version because it reduces excess optical transmission line. Id. We agree with Examiner that the skilled artisan would have understood Love’s discussion of hardwiring as being an alternative arrangement. Specifically, Love discloses the problems of excessive optical transmission line caused by hardwiring are faced only when “many stations must be interconnected.” Love 1:39–44. We agree with the Examiner that the skilled artisan would appreciate where the plurality of stations connected Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 11 by the optical transmission line 16 is small in number, the cost and space would not be the skilled artisan’s priority, as there would not be an excessive amount of optical transmission. Final Act. 7 (“When only two (2) stations are present, the mixer rods 45, 46 are superfluous. When more stations are present, hard-fibering remains available per Love. Further, despite any other structures related to signal transmission in Love, no mixing of the optical signals would occur with the hard-fibering configuration.”).3 Accordingly, we disagree with Appellant that Love teaches away from hardwiring the stations by disparaging direct connections. Indeed, “[a] teaching that a process would be inferior or less desirable is not a teaching away unless the use would render the process ‘inoperable.’” Ex parte Nakagawa, No. 2017-008721, 2019 WL 2318886, at *5 (PTAB May 23, 2019). See also In re ICON Health and Fitness Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Nonetheless, “obviousness must be determined in light of all the facts, and . . . a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added); see also Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit 3 Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s reasoning would thwart the purpose of Love’s redundancy offered by the loop system, noting that should “station 4 [in Figure 1 of Love] experience a failure . . . a hardwired connection between station 4 and station N would not permit communication between all stations” (see Reply Br. 5) is also not persuasive in light of the Examiner’s rejection, which focuses on a small number of stations each being directly hard-fibered to all other stations, ensuring communication even with one station failure. Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 12 comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). The disadvantage of hardwiring disclosed in Love (space and costs) depends primarily on how many stations being interconnected, when, as discussed, many stations are not required to practice the invention. Further, the Examiner position that additional benefits may be gained (see Ans. 8 (noting the advantages of “network speed, low latency or redundancy of optical pathway”)) is supported by Love’s teaching of hardwiring as an alternative option and that “a variety of interconnection schemes may be utilized.” Love 1:36–44. A reference stands for all of its specific teachings, as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); Merck & Co v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[A]ll disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered.” (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976))). Appellant further argues that hardwiring the couplers 35 would “require substantial modifications . . . to produce another routing path for the new fiber and other significant modifications, or the use of wholly different couplers in different parts of the system.” Appeal Br. 22. We are not persuaded because Appellant has not shown that hardwiring directly each station to every other station, as taught by Love, is outside of the skill of the ordinary artisan in view of the teachings and connections taught by Love. Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 13 “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Further, Appellant contends that a skilled artisan would not have modified the stations in Love with the loopback feature disclosed in Milton to confirm transmission of a signal. Appeal Br. 23. Rather, Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would have used a “prior art method of asking for an acknowledgement” or what Appellant asserts is a teaching in Love of “simply looking for the signal it transmitted on the loop network.”4 Appeal Br. 23. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s arguments recognize the benefits of a loop back connection and Milton offers an acceptable approach to the problem of determining whether a signal has been transmitted. Ans. 10. Further, Appellant’s argument do not address the express teaching in Love, relied upon by the Examiner, of the hard-fibered configuration. In such arrangement, the option to detect a signal in the loop connection, as Appellant argues does not exist. Accordingly, we are persuaded that a skilled artisan would look for a solution to determine whether a signal had been transmitted in the hard-wired alternative taught by Love, such as the direct loopback taught by Milton. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–9, 17–25, and 27 are affirmed. 4 We note that Love does not expressly teach looking for a signal in the loop, as argued, and note that the portion of Love quoted by Appellant (Appeal Br. 23) teaches that “[i]n practice, attenuation is large enough that the data is not detectable after one circuit of the loop,” suggesting that “looking for the signal” in the loop by the same station would not work. Appeal 2020-000164 Application 13/954,557 14 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 21, 22, 25 103 Love, Friden, Milton 1, 2, 21, 22, 25 27 103 Love, Friden, 27 3–5, 8 103 Love, Friden, Milton, Mrakovich 3–5, 8 6, 9 103 Love, Friden, Milton, Mrakovich, AAPA 6, 9 7 103 Love, Friden, Milton, Mrakovich, AAPA, Yuuki 7 17–20, 23, 24 103 Love, Friden, Milton, Kobayashi 17–20, 23, 24 Overall Outcome 1–9, 17–25, 27 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation